4 ms·

Following the local laws of countries where a company operates in is a fundamental condition necessary for globalization. The idea that the americans know best

Following the local laws of countries where a company operates in is a fundamental condition necessary for globalization. The idea that the americans know best and don't need to follow local laws is really just another form of imperialism.

waheoo 6y ago
Yup, even google does the best thing it can here. https://youtu.be/P_UVPTdjxC0 https://youtu.be/P_UVPTdjxC0 I find it incredibly hypocritical for any american to compalin about china, ya'll fucking made it what it is today.
rayiner 6y ago
It depends on the law. At a certain point local laws transgress international norms and it’s justified for countries and companies that have the power to get away with it to flout them: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2013-12-15-ct-biz-1215-outside-opinion-20131215-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2013-12-15-ct.... More broadly, it’s akin to how courts in the US will generally enforce judgments of foreign courts, but not if those judgments are based on laws that deviate too far what US courts consider to be the basic norms. > Many companies adopted the Sullivan Principles, prepared by the Rev. Leon Sullivan, a board member of General Motors. The Sullivan Principles asked its signatories to treat all workers equally, in effect calling on U.S. corporations to violate South African law, but only a few acted. > IBM became the first company in South Africa to appoint a black as a supervisor of white employees. On the other hand, IBM's largest client was the South African government, and its computers were used primarily by the military.
- joyfulmantis 6y ago
  Free speech is a concept even the west is struggling with -- Twitter hiding Donald Trump's tweets for example, or New Zealand banning the terrorists manifesto. If even the bastion of free speech is starting to have second doubts about it, how can you claim the moral high ground when a third country wants to restrict free speech?
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    This right here is why we should regulate twitter up to nationalization. If twitter does away with free speech and other human rights it becomes the new norm.
  - 6AA4FD 6y ago
    If you have a problem with twitter hiding trump's tweets and new zealand banning the christchurch shooter's manifesto, there's no inconsistency. There's also room for applying your own standard of free speech vs hate speed across international borders: I might say that the protestors in china were exercising free speech for political change, while trump's speech has no important theoretical or political content and is purely harassment. I might have to massage it to get to something fully agreeable, but I don't think this kind of position is necessarily inconsistent.
    - totony 6y ago
      I think the parent is right in that free speech is not an absolute and has geographical restrictions. Most western nations restrict free speech mostly by broadly defining some forms of speech as hate. Saying hate speech laws and free speech are consistent with each other is disingenuous considering one exists to limit the other. I can understand the argument that hate speech is a fair restriction, but one must concede that it is a restriction and other countries may add their own restrictions to it which you may disagree on.
      - 6AA4FD 6y ago
        I should clarify: most americans think everyone is entitled to some right called "free speech" but there are philosophical justifications of this that cut across the boundary between ideas and acts (kind of hard to summarize it) that exclude a lot of speech acts from "free speech" [0]. I was trying to say that it's not inconsistent to apply a single framework for free speech across national borders or despite companies like twitter blocking trump's tweets because there are theories of speech rights that work that way. [0]: There is an interesting paper on this called 'A Theory of Freedom of Expression' by Thomas Scanlon that can do a better job of explaining it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971?seq=1

waheoo 6y ago

Yup, even google does the best thing it can here. https://youtu.be/P_UVPTdjxC0 https://youtu.be/P_UVPTdjxC0 I find it incredibly hypocritical for any american to compalin about china, ya'll fucking made it what it is today.

rayiner 6y ago

It depends on the law. At a certain point local laws transgress international norms and it’s justified for countries and companies that have the power to get away with it to flout them: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2013-12-15-ct-biz-1215-outside-opinion-20131215-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2013-12-15-ct.... More broadly, it’s akin to how courts in the US will generally enforce judgments of foreign courts, but not if those judgments are based on laws that deviate too far what US courts consider to be the basic norms. > Many companies adopted the Sullivan Principles, prepared by the Rev. Leon Sullivan, a board member of General Motors. The Sullivan Principles asked its signatories to treat all workers equally, in effect calling on U.S. corporations to violate South African law, but only a few acted. > IBM became the first company in South Africa to appoint a black as a supervisor of white employees. On the other hand, IBM's largest client was the South African government, and its computers were used primarily by the military.

joyfulmantis 6y ago
Free speech is a concept even the west is struggling with -- Twitter hiding Donald Trump's tweets for example, or New Zealand banning the terrorists manifesto. If even the bastion of free speech is starting to have second doubts about it, how can you claim the moral high ground when a third country wants to restrict free speech?
- deathgrips 6y ago
  This right here is why we should regulate twitter up to nationalization. If twitter does away with free speech and other human rights it becomes the new norm.
- 6AA4FD 6y ago
  If you have a problem with twitter hiding trump's tweets and new zealand banning the christchurch shooter's manifesto, there's no inconsistency. There's also room for applying your own standard of free speech vs hate speed across international borders: I might say that the protestors in china were exercising free speech for political change, while trump's speech has no important theoretical or political content and is purely harassment. I might have to massage it to get to something fully agreeable, but I don't think this kind of position is necessarily inconsistent.
  - totony 6y ago
    I think the parent is right in that free speech is not an absolute and has geographical restrictions. Most western nations restrict free speech mostly by broadly defining some forms of speech as hate. Saying hate speech laws and free speech are consistent with each other is disingenuous considering one exists to limit the other. I can understand the argument that hate speech is a fair restriction, but one must concede that it is a restriction and other countries may add their own restrictions to it which you may disagree on.
    - 6AA4FD 6y ago
      I should clarify: most americans think everyone is entitled to some right called "free speech" but there are philosophical justifications of this that cut across the boundary between ideas and acts (kind of hard to summarize it) that exclude a lot of speech acts from "free speech" [0]. I was trying to say that it's not inconsistent to apply a single framework for free speech across national borders or despite companies like twitter blocking trump's tweets because there are theories of speech rights that work that way. [0]: There is an interesting paper on this called 'A Theory of Freedom of Expression' by Thomas Scanlon that can do a better job of explaining it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971?seq=1